AMD EPYC 9475F vs AMD EPYC 9565 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 has 72 cores and 144 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads. The 9565 offers 50% more cores and threads than the 9475F.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F has a base clock of 3.65 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The AMD EPYC 9565 has a base clock of 3.15 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The 9475F operates at higher frequencies in both metrics.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache capacity?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 9565 has 384 MB of shared L3 cache. The 9565 provides 128 MB more L3 cache.

Q: Which chip wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F wins in single-threaded tests. In the passmark_single_thread benchmark, the 9475F scores 3779 against the 9565's 3696, a delta of 2.2% in favor of the 9475F.

Q: Which chip wins in multi-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 wins in multi-threaded workloads. In the passmark_multithread benchmark, the 9565 scores 135221 against the 9475F's 122476, a 9.4% advantage. The 9565 also takes the passmark_data_compression test with a 16.4% lead.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs of these processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 9475F has a launch MSRP of $7592, and the AMD EPYC 9565 has a launch MSRP of $10486.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the EPYC 9005 series and share the same Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process node. They are both built for AMD Socket SP5 and target the Server/Workstation market segment. The similarities end at the silicon level, where the transistor counts and die configurations diverge substantially.

The AMD EPYC 9475F integrates 66,520 million transistors across a die size of 8x 70.6 mm². The AMD EPYC 9565 integrates 99,780 million transistors across a die size of 12x 70.6 mm². This means the 9565 uses four additional chiplets of the same size, which accounts for its higher core count and larger cache pool. The per-core cache structure is identical: 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache, however, scales with the number of chiplets, giving the 9475F 256 MB and the 9565 384 MB.

Memory support is also identical on paper: both support DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and both have ECC memory enabled. PCIe connectivity is the same as well, with Gen 5 and 128 lanes available from the CPU. Neither part includes integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The core count difference is the primary architectural differentiator. The 9475F is built around 48 cores, while the 9565 scales to 72 cores within the same TDP envelope of 400 watts. Both chips share the same 400 W TDP, which means the 9475F trades core count for higher clocks, while the 9565 trades clocks for more parallel throughput. The clock strategy is clear in the specifications: the 9475F's base clock of 3.65 GHz is 0.50 GHz higher than the 9565's 3.15 GHz, and its boost clock of 4.80 GHz is 0.50 GHz higher than the 9565's 4.30 GHz.

Both parts are produced by AMD under the EPYC (Zen 5 (Turin)) generation label and were released on the same date. Their production status is Active, and their part numbers are 100-000001143 for the 9475F and 100-000001447 for the 9565.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of labor. The AMD EPYC 9565 is the better choice for workloads that scale with core count and cache capacity. It wins 9 of the 11 head-to-head benchmarks, including all multi-threaded tests, and offers 384 MB of L3 cache versus 256 MB. For database compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithreaded throughput, physics simulation, and random string sorting, the 9565 leads by margins ranging from 8.8% to 37.8%.

The AMD EPYC 9475F is the better choice for single-threaded and frequency-sensitive workloads. It wins both single-thread benchmark entries with a 2.2% margin, and its higher base and boost clocks make it suitable for tasks that cannot use more than 48 cores. Users who prioritize raw per-core performance over aggregate throughput should look at the 9475F.

The 9565 also holds a stronger position among its nearest rivals. Its average benchmark score of 285471 sits within 2% of the Intel Xeon 696X and the AMD EPYC 9555P, and it leads the Intel Xeon 6780E by 1.8% and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X by 2%. The 9475F, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 350933, which places it 3.7% behind the AMD EPYC 9754, 3.9% behind the Intel Xeon 6960P, 6% behind the AMD EPYC 9655, and 7.5% behind the AMD EPYC 9535 in the nearest rival comparison. The percentile data reinforces this: the 9475F sits at the 100th percentile against all CPUs, while the 9565 sits at the 99th percentile.

For most server and workstation deployments where multi-threaded throughput dominates, the data favors the 9565. For single-threaded latency-sensitive applications, the 9475F is the stronger option.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9475F | AMD EPYC 9565 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 48 | 72 |

| Threads | 96 | 144 |

| Base Clock | 3.65 GHz | 3.15 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| Transistors | 66,520 million | 99,780 million |

| Die Size | 8x 70.6 mm² | 12x 70.6 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 384 MB (shared) |

| Launch MSRP | $7592 | $10486 |

The two processors share identical values for the following specifications: TDP (400 W), socket (AMD Socket SP5), architecture (Zen 5), codename (Turin), process node (4 nm), foundry (TSMC), L1 cache (80 KB per core), L2 cache (1 MB per core), memory support (DDR5), memory bus (Twelve-channel), memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s), ECC memory (true), PCIe (Gen 5, 128 Lanes CPU only), integrated graphics (N/A), market segment (Server/Workstation), production status (Active), release date (2024-10-09), multiplier unlocked (false), and generation (EPYC (Zen 5 (Turin))).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 9565 dominates the head-to-head comparison, winning 9 of 11 recorded tests. The largest single margin comes in the passmark_find_prime_numbers benchmark, where the 9565 scores 2422 against the 9475F's 1507, a 37.8% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to core count, and the 72-core part leverages its additional 24 cores effectively.

The floating-point math test shows the second-largest gap. The 9565 scores 549422 versus the 9475F's 406524, a 26% lead. Integer math follows a similar pattern, with the 9565 scoring 717948 against 605696, a 15.6% margin. Extended instructions favor the 9565 by 17.4%, with scores of 209595 versus 173169. Data encryption shows a 17.8% lead for the 9565, scoring 141936 against 116648. Data compression is another strong win for the 9565, scoring 2579631 versus 2156305, a 16.4% difference.

Random string sorting goes to the 9565 by 13%, with scores of 291941 versus 253936. The multithread test shows a 9.4% advantage for the 9565, scoring 135221 against 122476. Physics simulation is the narrowest multi-threaded win for the 9565, with a 8.8% margin, scoring 18036 versus 16443.

The 9475F takes the two single-thread tests. In passmark_single_thread, the 9475F scores 3779 against the 9565's 3696, a 2.2% margin. The duplicate passmark_singlethread entry records the same result. These wins align with the 9475F's higher clock speeds: its 4.80 GHz boost clock outpaces the 9565's 4.30 GHz, and its 3.65 GHz base clock beats the 9565's 3.15 GHz.

The average benchmark scores tell a broader story. The 9475F has an average benchmark score of 350933, while the 9565 has an average of 285471. This difference is notable because the 9475F's average is inflated by its strong showing in the passmark extended tests, while the 9565's average reflects a wider set of Cinebench results including the R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core tests. The 9565 records Cinebench R23 multi-core at 114937 and single-core at 16226, data that is not present for the 9475F in the recorded benchmarks.

In the nearest rival context, the 9475F's average of 350933 sits close to the AMD EPYC 9754 at 364371, within a 3.7% gap, and the Intel Xeon 6960P at 365194, a 3.9% gap. The 9565's average of 285471 is nearly tied with the Intel Xeon 696X at 286102, a 0.2% gap, and the AMD EPYC 9555P at 287066, a 0.6% gap. The 9475F's percentile ranking at 100 indicates it outperforms all other CPUs in the database's aggregate scoring, while the 9565's 99th percentile still places it at the very top of the field.